Monday, 5 October 2009

Fantasy Politics At Best - Dishonesty At Worst

So sums up Bruno Waterfield, writing in the Daily Telegraph, on the Conservative's 'policy' 'sitting on the fence' in respect of waiting to see whether the Polish and Czech Presidents sign the 'instrument of ratification'. Waterfield also writes that "Tory slipperiness on the question is beginning to resemble some of the new Labour’s contortions over Lisbon and referendums". Interestingly, Daniel Hannan who co-authored 'The Plan', who has repeatedly over the years called for withdrawal from the European Union would appear to have had a slight change of heart.


It is appreciated that what follows has been covered by others in the past, however it is worth repeating. The preamble to the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union states:


"Confirming their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms......"


Let us consider just three terms from that statement - 'democracy', 'human rights' and 'fundamental freedoms'. One of the basic elements of a democracy is that the government enacts laws with the agreement of the majority of those governed. Not one EU bureaucrat, nor British politician, can claim that the Treaty of Lisbon has received the assent of the British people. One of the fundamental freedoms and human right which any electorate has is that of being given a choice in any change to the system of how they are governed - something the British people have not received - otherwise such a change can only be viewed as 'usurpation' of power. Yet the European Union, which states again in the Preamble "....the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy.....", wishes to create a United States of Europe based on disregarding the basic principles on which it wants to 'found' itself!


Likewise for any political party to refuse any form of referendum on the Lisbon Treaty coupled with Britain's membership of the European Union, as it now is, is 'usurpation' of power. The politician's argument that withdrawal would involve any government in costly and technical negotiations is not an argument that can logically be upheld. Two points: the majority of the British public want such a choice and as politicians created the situation we now find ourselves, let them 'sort it out'; and, if they don't feel capable of undertaking that task, then step aside and let those who feel they can 'get on with it'!

Update: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has a well-written piece in the Daily Telegraph here.

1 comment:

Fausty said...

Well put. I've linked to this.